3 ms·

What is wrong with that? Isn't it how science works: you make an hypothesis and test it.

by lugu 2y ago

Xelbair 2y ago
but you conform to the experimental results. you can suggest further experimentation to prove another point, but this is different from assuming a priori that effect WILL happen. The issue is not in the idea itself, but how it is phrased.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  They did suggest a new experiment, one lasting longer than 21 days to test their hypothesis. Hypothesis -> proposed experiment -> results -> questions evoked by results -> new hypothesis -> new proposed experiment MOST importantly, they didn’t fake any results and went where the data took them. This is the kind of science that has been falling out of fashion for the last few decades in favor of researchers who work based on other principles.
  - subroutine 2y ago
    They could have included the obvious (but probably unwanted) alternative hypothesis: Researchers suggest that these results might mean that changes in cognitive ability could take longer than the study period of 21 days to materialize, or access to devices has a positive effect on attention offsetting the effects of sleep on attention. It's probably unlikely but it is an obvious possibility.
    - bilbo0s 2y ago
      So is the possibility that attention is an emergent genetic trait. There are many, many alternative explanations. You are lamenting the exclusion of your preferred alternative explanation, but the researchers need to choose one and look further along that branch. The idea of open science is that other teams would be free to explore plausible alternative hypotheses. Some team might explore yours. Another might dig into my idea about the behavior’s relationship to genetics. And so on. This is the method by which we move ourselves forward. And it’s easy to see how that effort is hampered by the practice of data tampering and other shenanigans. Which this team did not engage in, even when part of there hypothesis wasn’t supported by their data. This team deserves a “Bravo!”
    - sourcepluck 2y ago
      OR - crazy hypothesis - maybe they're familiar with the large amounts of research that already exists which shows that access to devices has a negative effect on attention. Just maybe.
bilbo0s 2y ago
I think so many people, even most here on HN, have forgotten how the scientific method works.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  Agree. I propose hypothesis here all the time and people will say "Show me the study that proves what you are saying!". For instance. It maybe that the distracting quality of the phone is not the only thing providing better sleep and mood, but maybe it is the collective power of the EMF radiation that is disturbing the children's catecholamines. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1382668915300594 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13826...
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    Ok. Design the experiment to test your hypothesis, and then present its results. The truth of it will be in the data. There is likely a way to test this hypothesis on human children in an ethical fashion.
    - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
      I already designed the experiment. I cannot get funding. Also: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2014/198609 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2014/198609 "They examined the acute as well as chronic effects of EMF exposure and found a significant increase in adrenaline and noradrenaline levels after EMF exposure, following a drop, but the normal levels were not restored even at the end of the study (about one and a half year). They also observed significant diminution in dopamine levels."
  - Ray20 2y ago
    Or even banning phones makes schools (where the experiment is probably being conducted) less transparent, allowing more freely to pressure subjects (intentionally or not) to ensure the "proper" result of the experiment.
- deleted 2y ago

What is wrong with that? Isn't it how science works: you make an hypothesis and test it.

by lugu 2y ago

What is wrong with that? Isn't it how science works: you make an hypothesis and test it.

but you conform to the experimental results. you can suggest further experimentation to prove another point, but this is different from assuming a priori that effect WILL happen. The issue is not in the idea itself, but how it is phrased.

bilbo0s 2y ago
They did suggest a new experiment, one lasting longer than 21 days to test their hypothesis. Hypothesis -> proposed experiment -> results -> questions evoked by results -> new hypothesis -> new proposed experiment MOST importantly, they didn’t fake any results and went where the data took them. This is the kind of science that has been falling out of fashion for the last few decades in favor of researchers who work based on other principles.
- subroutine 2y ago
  They could have included the obvious (but probably unwanted) alternative hypothesis: Researchers suggest that these results might mean that changes in cognitive ability could take longer than the study period of 21 days to materialize, or access to devices has a positive effect on attention offsetting the effects of sleep on attention. It's probably unlikely but it is an obvious possibility.
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    So is the possibility that attention is an emergent genetic trait. There are many, many alternative explanations. You are lamenting the exclusion of your preferred alternative explanation, but the researchers need to choose one and look further along that branch. The idea of open science is that other teams would be free to explore plausible alternative hypotheses. Some team might explore yours. Another might dig into my idea about the behavior’s relationship to genetics. And so on. This is the method by which we move ourselves forward. And it’s easy to see how that effort is hampered by the practice of data tampering and other shenanigans. Which this team did not engage in, even when part of there hypothesis wasn’t supported by their data. This team deserves a “Bravo!”
  - sourcepluck 2y ago
    OR - crazy hypothesis - maybe they're familiar with the large amounts of research that already exists which shows that access to devices has a negative effect on attention. Just maybe.

bilbo0s 2y ago

I think so many people, even most here on HN, have forgotten how the scientific method works.

FollowingTheDao 2y ago
Agree. I propose hypothesis here all the time and people will say "Show me the study that proves what you are saying!". For instance. It maybe that the distracting quality of the phone is not the only thing providing better sleep and mood, but maybe it is the collective power of the EMF radiation that is disturbing the children's catecholamines. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1382668915300594 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13826...
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  Ok. Design the experiment to test your hypothesis, and then present its results. The truth of it will be in the data. There is likely a way to test this hypothesis on human children in an ethical fashion.
  - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    I already designed the experiment. I cannot get funding. Also: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2014/198609 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2014/198609 "They examined the acute as well as chronic effects of EMF exposure and found a significant increase in adrenaline and noradrenaline levels after EMF exposure, following a drop, but the normal levels were not restored even at the end of the study (about one and a half year). They also observed significant diminution in dopamine levels."
- Ray20 2y ago
  Or even banning phones makes schools (where the experiment is probably being conducted) less transparent, allowing more freely to pressure subjects (intentionally or not) to ensure the "proper" result of the experiment.
deleted 2y ago